BANK OF INDIA GOMOH Vs. RADHA NATH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There has been delay of 13 days in filing revision petition, for which an application for condonation of delay has been filed by petitioner and for the reasons stated therein, the delay is hereby condoned.

(2.) Respondent no.1/complainant had taken a loan of Rs.50,000/- from the petitioner/opposite party/bank under the Prime Ministers Rozgar Yojna for running auto parts shop. Two installments of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.27,000/- were released by the petitioner/ Bank. While after the pre-sanction inspection the first installment was disbursed to the complainant for arranging furniture, signboard etc. , the second installment was released after the post-sanction inspection directly to the respondent no.2 (M/s Deepak Agency) by demand draft for sending auto parts to the complainant, under intimation to the complainant that he may contact the respondent no.2 for getting the auto parts. The respondent no.2 neither supplied the goods nor returned the draft to the petitioner/bank, resulting in wastage of amount of first installment of Rs.20,000/-.

(3.) In this background, the respondent no.1/complainant filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Dhanbad (District Forum for short), praying for amount of Rs.85,000/- towards repaying the loan amount, damages, mental agony and physical harassment as well as for direction to the petitioner/bank to return all his academic certificates which were kept by them at the time of sanctioning the loan in his favour. When notice was issued by the District Forum to the petitioner/bank through courier, they refused to accept the same and on the basis of the report to that effect the District Forum proceeded to dispose of the complaint after hearing the learned counsel for the respondent no.1/complainant. The respondent no.1/complainant contended before the District Forum that the petitioner/bank in collusion with the respondent no.2 (M/s Deepak Agency) had sent the DD of Rs.27,000/- to the respondent no.2 without his consent, just for extracting commission. The District Forum having admitted the contention of respondent no.1/complainant in absence of any reply on behalf of the petitioner/opposite party/bank and observing their improper action in not taking any action for recovery of Rs.27,000/- from the respondent no.2 held them to be guilty of taking commission and directed them to pay to the respondent no.1/complainant a sum of Rs.85,000/- within 30 days from the date of the order i. e.03.06.2004, failing which the said amount was directed to carry interest @ 12% p. a. from 01.09.2003 till the date of actual payment. Against the order of the District Forum, the petitioner/opposite party/bank filed a time-barred appeal before the Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (State Commission for short ). The petitioner/ Bank alleged that they had not received any notice from the District Forum and could know about the complaint only on 09.07.2004 when they received a copy its order dated 3.6.2004. Upon receipt of that order, the Bank Manager concerned inspected the records of the case at the District Forum on 12.07.2004 and found that the case was proceeded ex-parte against them on the basis of a report which stated that they had refused to accept the notice sent by the District Forum through courier. After getting sanction/approval from the appropriate authorities and engaging a lawyer to pursue the matter, the petitioner/opposite party/bank filed an appeal before the State Commission along with delay condonation application. The State Commission while passing its order dated 21.11.2005 observed that no sufficient cause had been made out for condoning the delay and as such dismissed the appeal of the petitioner/opposite party/bank on the ground of limitation. Hence, this revision petition by the petitioner/opposite party/bank.